Best superhero movie of all time? (Nominations thread)

[Cadence]

You can nit picking it lol. I don't think robocops a super hero movie.

I would agree. It's science fiction human identity stuff.

The tags/subgenres for RoboCop are given as: Cyberpunk, Dark Comedy, One-Person Army Action, Superhero, Tregedy, Action Crime, Sci-Fi, Thriller.

The genre list as: Action, Crime, Sci-Fi, Thriller

 

[MarkB]

I went to IMDB for the Superhero subgenre ... and it included Sonic III and Dog Man, for example.

https://www.imdb.com/interest/in0000008/?ref_=tt_ov_in_3

I'm pretty sure that isn't helpful...

I'm trying to think of anything that would disqualify Sonic 3 from being a superhero movie, and I'm drawing a blank. It certainly seems to check all the boxes, moreso than many that are explicitly marketed as superhero movies.

 

[Tonguez]

Weird. I can only think of a few minor points where they overlap.

Even the most powerful high-end pulp heroes are peanuts compared to your bog-standard superhero. The most powerful pulp heroes are at best absurdly low-powered street-level superheroes. And that's basically the only place they overlap.

If you only look at low-powered street-level superheroes, you can kind of squint and see pulp heroes. But then you place that character in their proper setting, and all bets are off. Pulp heroes a la The Shadow, Doc Savage, The Spider, Secret Agent X, etc are quite limited in their setting when compared to superheroes. Typically you have mostly real-world 1930s-1950s settings with the occasional fantastical location on the planet in the pulps whereas in superhero stories you have alien planets, time travel, alternate dimensions, alternate realities, etc. Anything goes.

As for the villains, in the pulps you'll very occasionally have a genius-level villain with some kind of laughably basic super-science device threatening some convoluted plan to take over a piece of the planet or the whole shebang. The villains are mostly normal people with guns, a few racist stereotypes, and the occasional robot. It's rare to have a villain that's powered. In superhero stories? Wow. All bets are off. Aliens, mecha, kaiju, super-powered villains, sentient planets, demons, proper wizards as opposed to fancy stage magicians, undead, etc. Again, anything goes.

Then there's the morality. In the pulps, the heroes have zero qualms about straight up killing the bad guys or putting them into situations where their evil choices result in their deaths. Like rigging a gun to explode if fired then leaving it for the villain to find. Then there's Doc Savage's infamous Crime College and giving criminals lobotomies so they reform. Pulp heroes would be, at best, anti-heroes in a superhero world. And, of course, most of your classic superheroes are all about the high-minded morality and codes against killing, etc.

Looking at Batman, the poster boy for confusing the two, is a great place to start. He's a direct rip-off of the Shadow with some minor changes. The creators of Batman admitted this decades ago (link 1, link 2). In the more low-key stories Bats is challenged by mundane serial killers who occasionally wear funny pajamas but in the more absurd stories he's outwitting literal gods...and he has workable contingency plans to take out every super-powered person he's aware of. The former are closer to pulp hero stories, but Bats exists in an obviously superhero setting and his abilities are far beyond anything a pulp hero could manage.

Then there's all the differences the medium makes. Generally speaking, short prose novels vs 22-page comic books.

So what makes them distinct? Literally everything about both genres except the fact that the main character is exceptional in some way.

Not to put too fine a point on it, it's like looking at military sci-fi and space opera and saying they're the same because they both have spaceships. They're not at all the same despite having a select few elements in common.

Exactly. There's also a difference between superhero fiction and action-adventure. Just because the action-adventure hero can survive absurd events doesn't make them a superhero. Again, it's reductive. There's so much more to genre than what few traits the main characters share.

Weird. I can only think of a few minor points where they overlap.

Even the most powerful high-end pulp heroes are peanuts compared to your bog-standard superhero. The most powerful pulp heroes are at best absurdly low-powered street-level superheroes. And that's basically the only place they overlap.

If you only look at low-powered street-level superheroes, you can kind of squint and see pulp heroes. But then you place that character in their proper setting, and all bets are off. Pulp heroes a la The Shadow, Doc Savage, The Spider, Secret Agent X, etc are quite limited in their setting when compared to superheroes. Typically you have mostly real-world 1930s-1950s settings with the occasional fantastical location on the planet in the pulps whereas in superhero stories you have alien planets, time travel, alternate dimensions, alternate realities, etc. Anything goes.

As for the villains, in the pulps you'll very occasionally have a genius-level villain with some kind of laughably basic super-science device threatening some convoluted plan to take over a piece of the planet or the whole shebang. The villains are mostly normal people with guns, a few racist stereotypes, and the occasional robot. It's rare to have a villain that's powered. In superhero stories? Wow. All bets are off. Aliens, mecha, kaiju, super-powered villains, sentient planets, demons, proper wizards as opposed to fancy stage magicians, undead, etc. Again, anything goes.

Then there's the morality. In the pulps, the heroes have zero qualms about straight up killing the bad guys or putting them into situations where their evil choices result in their deaths. Like rigging a gun to explode if fired then leaving it for the villain to find. Then there's Doc Savage's infamous Crime College and giving criminals lobotomies so they reform. Pulp heroes would be, at best, anti-heroes in a superhero world. And, of course, most of your classic superheroes are all about the high-minded morality and codes against killing, etc.

Looking at Batman, the poster boy for confusing the two, is a great place to start. He's a direct rip-off of the Shadow with some minor changes. The creators of Batman admitted this decades ago (link 1, link 2). In the more low-key stories Bats is challenged by mundane serial killers who occasionally wear funny pajamas but in the more absurd stories he's outwitting literal gods...and he has workable contingency plans to take out every super-powered person he's aware of. The former are closer to pulp hero stories, but Bats exists in an obviously superhero setting and his abilities are far beyond anything a pulp hero could manage.

Then there's all the differences the medium makes. Generally speaking, short prose novels vs 22-page comic books.

So what makes them distinct? Literally everything about both genres except the fact that the main character is exceptional in some way.

Not to put too fine a point on it, it's like looking at military sci-fi and space opera and saying they're the same because they both have spaceships. They're not at all the same despite having a select few elements in common.

Exactly. There's also a difference between superhero fiction and action-adventure. Just because the action-adventure hero can survive absurd events doesn't make them a superhero. Again, it's reductive. There's so much more to genre than what few traits the main characters share.

Even if we just stick with Doc Savage (Clark Savage Jrn) as our Pulp archetype then it isnt just typical 1930s scenery. He might start off in New York but he very soon goes off to some exotic locales or lost world for the adventure. He fights would be world conquerors, dinosaurs, mad scientist with death rays, mutagens and ice guns and at least one opponent who might be from another dimension.
Looking at other tropes he's a Millionaire Industrialist who was socially engineered from birth by a team of scientist (including his millionaire father) to be a peak-human superman. He is as Strong as 10 Men, a Genius polymath with multiple advanced degrees, and has a superior moral compass that makes him heroic. Then following yet another trope - young Clarks father was killed by unknown enemies spurring him on to investigate, vowing to confront evil-doers. Doc Savage even has his own Fortress of Solitude!

Captain America was also engineered by a team of scientist to be as strong as 100 men, and Steve was selected for his superior moral compass.

Tony Stark is the Millionaire Philanthropist, Genius Polymath with multiple degrees

Even Superman was engineered by his scientist father and imbued with a superior moral compass

If you want Aliens - then Flash Gordon and John Carter of Mars are pulp era characters that battle aliens

So even without citing Batman the same tropes exist in both pulp and superheroes, especially in the golden age comics which absolutely were Pulp (its no coincidence that the poster boys for both are named Clark!).

Sure we get further development including massive ramping up of power levels in the silver age, especially with the concept of Cosmic Scale powers in the 60s and after, but I dont think you can meaningfully distinguish Doc Savage fighting mad scientist from Cap America or Iron Man doing the same thing with the same stakes.

 

[Reynard]

You can nit picking it lol. I don't think robocops a super hero movie.

I would agree. It's science fiction human identity stuff.

Origin story? Check.
Super powers? Check.
Distinctive appearance? Check?
Identifiable villains? Check.
Sacrifice to help people? Check.

I don't see the conflict.

 

[Ryujin]

Origin story? Check.
Super powers? Check.
Distinctive appearance? Check?
Identifiable villains? Check.
Sacrifice to help people? Check.

I don't see the conflict.

There is certainly a lot of cross-over between the various genres, especially when it comes to something like a "gadget hero." By some of the definitions that have been put forth Batman, Iron Man, and Robocop don't qualify as "superheroes", because they don't have "powers." Mechanical aids aren't "powers", in the technical sense. I don't make that distinction but, to me, Robocop isn't primarily a superhero story. It uses technology to examine what makes someone human.

 

[Reynard]

but, to me, Robocop isn't primarily a superhero story. It uses technology to examine what makes someone human.

Why can't a superhero story ask those questions? Hell, Superman stories do it on the regular, as do Hulk and X-Men stories.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There can only be one.

And, in case it matters to you, I think there's a distinction between your favorite superhero movie and the best superhero movie.

So, which is it? What's the single best superhero movie?

I think it might be The Avengers. It just did such a good job of paying off the narrative of the previous films.

My favorite superhero movie is probably the first X-Men film. It was the first time Marvel came out with a solid film that captured a part of the MU I really cared about, and to me it hit pretty darn good.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Endgame. But I honestly probably like Dark Knight and Winter Soldier better. But, arguably, because they're not actually superhero movies, even though they have superhero characters.

Same is kinda sorta true for Sky High, which I have to throw out there as a dark horse contender.

Sky High is a favorite of mine too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Finally somebody mentions Logan. 45 posts in, I thought I was alone.

EDIT: I missed Ruin Explorer's post at #42

Logan is an amazing film, but for me it's got too specific a vibe to be the best superhero movie.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Spiderman 2 or The Dark Knight.

I came this close to calling out Spider-Man 2! Great all-around, with a emotionally resonant story and an amazing villain. You don't know how happy I was to see him again in No Way Home.